Building new gas-fired power plant is vital for energy security, according to firm
Plans have been submitted to create a new gas-fired power plant to the northeast of Peterhead.
The facility would be built next to the existing one and use carbon capture to reduce its emissions.
Climate campaigners have questioned the need for a new fossil fuel-powered plant and argue that the focus should be on publicly owned renewable energy instead.
The current owner of Peterhead Power Station, SSE Thermal, says it is coming to the end of its engineering life and needs to be replaced.
Finlay McCutcheon, managing director of SSE Thermal, said: 'They do have an ultimate economic, technical life and they will need to be replaced.
'That's why we at SSE want to build new, replacement power stations that are either abated and decarbonised from day one, which is what we want to do at Peterhead or on a clear pathway to decarbonisation in the future.'
The current power plant is one of the biggest polluters in Scotland but those behind plans for the new site say using carbon capture technology could reduce emissions by more than 90%.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) created at the plant would be captured, transported to nearby St Fergus at the Acorn project, before the CO2 is pumped out to the North Sea by pipes and stored around 2.5km under the seabed, in a process known as CCUS.
However, the delay in the advancement of CCUS means a closure date for the current plant has changed from 2030 until the middle of the next decade.
The two sites could also operate side-by-side until 2040, in a 'worst case scenario', according to SSE Thermal.
The plans are currently with the Scottish Government, and it will be for ministers to decide if they get the go-ahead.
Climate campaigners have urged the Government to reject the proposals.
Rosie Hampton, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: 'What gives us real energy security is publicly owned renewable energy that isn't tied to the volatile international prices of gas and can bring down bills for people whilst also making the necessary energy transition that we need.
'When we think about what delivers for people in the North East of Scotland and the rest of the country, we're looking at things like wind, solar, direct electrification, we're not looking at power stations.'
However, SSE Thermal argues that gas-fired power stations will still be needed even during the transition, when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
The current plant has been in operation for more than 40 years.
Although its role has changed, when it first started working in the early 1980s, it operated at near full capacity for most of the year.
Now, because of the increased use of renewables there can be several days at a time when it isn't generating power.
A recent updated environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the new power plant says estimated emissions over its lifespan have increased by around threefold from the original estimates.
SSE Thermal said the direct pollution from the proposed plant hasn't increased.
The firm's MD said: 'We've updated that to take into account the upstream emissions from the gas that we will use for the new power station.
'What hasn't changed is our assessment of the direct emissions from the power station, that remains exactly the same.'
Friends of the Earth Scotland said more than 1,600 people and 30 organisations objected to the plans in a consultation on the updated EIA that closed this week.
The current plant employs around 80 full-time staff, and it's estimated that the new site will employ around 240.
Jennifer Hemmings has worked at the power plant for four years and believes a new station is vital for the area.
'I think it's very important for me in terms of things like job security and as well for myself moving into a more greener kind of job,' she told STV News.
'I think it would mean job growth, especially in the development phase, when it's getting built, lots of local work.'
The Scottish Government said it would not be 'appropriate' to comment on a live application.
'A decision will be taken by ministers in due course, following consideration of the application information, consultation responses and representations made by members of the public,' a spokesperson said.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Glasgow Subway poke fun at Donald Trump in social media post
In a new podcast interview, Trump praised the Scots as "great fighters" before saying that there are no subways in Scotland. (Image: Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) While on Pod Force One Podcast, Trump said: "The Scottish people are really amazing and they're great fighters too, that's why England sort of never... Braveheart, one of the great movies of all time, England had a hard time with Scotland they just couldn't quite tame them. "They're great people, no crime, you don't have crime, you don't have muggings, you don't have people getting hit over the head when they're not looking with a baseball bat. They're not pushed into a subway if they had them, which they don't. You wouldn't have them pushed into a subway." However, Glasgow is the only city in Scotland which has a subway system. The comments follow Trump's visits to his golf courses in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire. He also had a meeting with the First Minister during his time in the country. (Image: Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Glasgow Subway have since hit back at Trump for his false claims. Taking to Instagram, they wrote: "Sorry Mr President, we've been here since 1896. My Glasgow, My Subway." People have bee quick to applaud Glasgow Subway for the post. One person said: "I love you, Glasgow Subway page." Another said: "Fact checked by Glasgow Subway is wild."
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Scottish Tories eye Reform electoral pact
Senior Scottish Conservatives have discussed striking an electoral pact with Reform UK for the Holyrood elections next spring. One figure backing a deal told The Telegraph it could help avoid splitting the vote on the Right and kick the SNP out of power in Scotland. The deal, which would not need to be made public, would see the Tories either not stand candidates or go easy in areas where Reform is better placed to win and vice versa. It comes as Nigel Farage 's party sits above the Conservatives in third place in opinion polls for the Scottish Parliament elections next May. A pact does not have the backing of Russell Findlay, the Scottish Tory leader, whose team released a statement ruling out the possibility when approached by The Telegraph. But the fact a deal is being considered at senior levels in the party underscores the scale of Reform's popularity surge north of the border and the concerns it has triggered among Tories. In Scotland, Reform now has 15 councillors, 14 of whom used to be Conservatives. It is in marked contrast to other political parties previously run by Mr Farage, such as the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which struggled to get a foothold north of border. One Tory MSP has privately spoken of a defection 'watch list' in Holyrood of those suspected of switching to Reform. Mr Farage also waved away the idea he would agree to any such pact, telling The Telegraph: 'No chance. The Tories are dying in Scotland and I've got no desire to do a deal with them whatsoever.' The idea of some form of agreement, public or private, between the Conservatives and Reform has become a common discussion point in Westminster. Average UK-wide voting polls have Reform in first place on 30 per cent of the vote, with the Tories in a distant third on 17 per cent. Labour is in second place on 22 per cent. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has ruled out a pre-vote deal with Mr Farage, but speculation continues with the next general election not due until 2029. The recent by-election result for the Scottish Parliament seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse underscored the challenges of Right-wing parties splitting the vote. Labour won the seat with 32 per cent of the vote, followed by the SNP on 29 per cent. Reform came third on 26 per cent. Had the Tories, who got 6 per cent, not stood a candidate, it is possible Reform would have beaten Labour and taken the seat, though pollsters often caution against hard conclusions when predicting voter behaviour. Mr Farage has agreed to election pacts before. The Brexit Party, the precursor to Reform which Mr Farage led, had criticism of the Tory handling of the issue of Europe as its heart. Yet he still agreed not to stand candidates against sitting Conservatives at the 2019 general election to help Boris Johnson win and get a Brexit deal through the Commons, securing the UK's departure from the European Union. Despite interest in some quarters of the Scottish Conservative Party, other figures strongly played down the possibility of a pact. One Scottish Tory politician who has spent years in influential positions said: 'Churchill's phrase comes to mind, 'You don't negotiate with a tiger when your head's in its mouth'. We're in competition with Reform – we're not in partnership with them.' The source said Scottish Tory supporters had brought up the prospect of a deal with Reform but that there was little chance it would be adopted by the leadership. Another senior Scottish Tory said: 'Why would Reform do a deal? I can see why we might be interested in it, but why would they?' There have long been suspicions on the Right of coordination between Labour and the Liberal Democrats at general elections to maximise the chances of Tory defeats. The Lib Dems surged from winning 11 MPs at the 2019 general election to 72 MPs at the 2024 general election with almost no increase in overall vote share. The party's strategists have talked about how they ruthlessly focused on a small number of winnable seats rather than competing hard everywhere. Labour was likely to have benefited from the decreased campaigning in non-target seats. But there are reasons why striking some form of deal would be less likely in elections for the Scottish Parliament than the UK-wide Parliament in Westminster. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has a proportional element, meaning as well as individual constituency races a party wins some MPs for their overall vote totals. Reform, whose strategists hope to get between 10 and 20 MSPs next spring, is expected to get their victories almost entirely via this way, known as 'the list', rather than winning constituencies. That could provide a disincentive to strike a deal with the Tories, given a lower overall vote total would likely mean fewer MSPs thanks to this proportion element of the election. In polling for next spring's Scottish Parliament elections, Reform is on around 17 per cent, above the Tories on around 12 per cent. The SNP is top, followed by Labour. A year ago, it looked likely that Labour could win power in Scotland but a support slump since Sir Keir Starmer took office last summer means the SNP is now well-placed to remain in office. A Scottish Conservative spokesman said: 'Nigel Farage has said he is content with the SNP winning another five years in power and Reform stood multiple pro-independence candidates in the general election, so no, this won't be happening. 'The Scottish Conservatives want to get the SNP out of power, while Reform will gladly help the nationalists.'
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Consent for gigantic wind farm is an ironic act of ecocide
The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale. We note 'SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds', but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. READ MORE: Scottish crew 'excluded from Spider Man 4 filming' What will its proposed 'mitigation' provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide. The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened. Aileen Jackson Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may 'breach international law' (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland's position. The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn't qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it's a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let's test the same criteria: Permanent population? Scotland has that; Defined territory? Clearly; Functioning government? We've had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers. Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight. By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one? John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn't say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn't have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That's a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn't begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That's how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That's how international law actually works. The real reason Scotland isn't independent isn't legal, it's psychological. Our leaders won't cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy. So yes, the peers' letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are. James Murphy Bute THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could 'breach international law' warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it. A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice. The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one. Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances. Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion. (Image: Jonathan Brady) More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised. It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Peter Macari Aberdeen
